I'm tired of the US thinking that military forceful action is the way to resolve conflicts, especially the way to win the "war on drugs." We should be much more effective at reducing drug addiction if we realized that it's not so much about the drugs, it's about our growing culture of conflict and emotional avoidance. When a population lets itself feel sadness, feel pain, and reinterpret conflicts from the assumed "they don't care about me" to "they care more about me than I may ever realize," then I am willing to bet the drug industry will shrink significantly.
Punishing those who sell drugs often just perpetuates this idea that punishment resolves conflict, which I'm very willing to bet actually _increases_ our tendency to be addicted to drugs.
It's far easier to reduce consumption by cutting the supply entering your country, than solving the self-actualization issues (is it even one?) of your population.
People selling drugs such as fentanyl or cocaine have various techniques to hook consumers and keep them addicted regardless of their mental state. Selling hard drugs is criminalized for a good reason.
So easy. Exactly why Sweden have had a "zero tolerance" policy against drugs, particularly Cannabis, yet usage keeps growing no matter how much resources they keep throwing at stricter border controls and trying to reduce both supply and demand by arresting everyone with even traces of Cannabinoids in their blood. https://www.euda.europa.eu/publications/country-drug-reports...
> People selling drugs such as fentanyl or cocaine have various techniques to hook consumers and keep them addicted regardless of their mental state. Selling hard drugs is criminalized for a good reason.
You're making the argument for why these things should be sold in controlled circumstances, rather than by private individuals who don't care about anything else but themselves, yet you end with "is criminalized for a good reason". Completely opposite, you're making the argument for why it needs to be legalized.
In the case of Sweden, it is mainly a symptom of non-european immigration, using their criminal networks to import the product. Netherland is dominated by Moroccan mafia, France by the Algerian mafia, and so on. Remigrating them would likely solve a big part of the problem.
> controlled selling
Yes, that's already the case in most countries: I can get opioids such as morphine in the case of surgical operation. Many ADHD teens get derivatives of amphetamines. No one is against this.
OTOH, if demand drops, that's real money out of traffickers pockets. They sell less, and at lower prices.
You're not solving any problems, you're moving them around. What's the point?
Stuff like this is hard to believe in 2025 without really compelling evidence.
The reverse is also true: the crack epidemic was caused by a dramatic increase in the supply of cocaine, which allowed even the poorest members of society to afford it. It's happening again now in Europe.
We can discuss about the criminalization of users and its effects on society, but in the case of the sellers I don't really see a case, especially when you know the conditions in which drugs are produced, involving often borderline slavery and wide corruption networks.
I don't think the drugs are inherently the problem, as there's a paper I loved talking about different kinds of escapism: one where people escape to avoid problems and the second where people escape to solve problems.
So I still think the root is problem avoidance, which at an even more root level is emotional avoidance, especially of "bad" feelings, mostly sadness.
So I don't see it as self-actualization for some noble goal, but rather a practical how do I actually solve problems in my life goal.
tldr; banning certain drugs can be whack-a-mole, trying to solve symptoms but not the problem.
But I dunno, I tend to say we should make it harder to get guns, so I want to reflect a little more on my double standard.
You don’t need any special tricks to keep someone buying fentanyl, the withdrawals are your sales pitch.
With the exception of medicinally. Like lost op painkillers. But that’s different than what you’re saying.
Drug users can be found at every stage of the society, either because of psychological/genetic issues making them more prone to consume, or because it's a cultural thing to do it (e.g alcohol), or there is peer pressure leading to consumption. Your living conditions have little to do about it, really.
People seem to conflate whats supposed to be separate in these realms
Like, when we talk about farmer subsidies, wedont call it food grab, when its functionally the same.
Shouldnt we just drop this american democracy facade for a hybrid corporatocracy with optional citizen input?
Anyway, oil grab suggests American government, rather than business interests, benefits.
Most? I doubt that. Many? Yes. But because "many" can't avoid being hypocrites constantly, doesn't mean we suddenly should stop calling it out when we see it, don't you agree?
“Calling it out” is meaningless
There are countless of organizations who follow their stated missions even after 100, 200, 400 or even 800 years. I'm not sure you should judge it based on some young US organizations, or whatever you're going by.
> “Calling it out” is meaningless
Not calling it out is cowardice and complacency. "Calling it out" might have a tiny effect, but it surely beats nothing.
------------
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_Unit...
Korea was not a war. Vietnam was not a war. Iraq I and II were not wars. Afghanistan was not a war. The "War on Terror" was not a war. You could be forgiven for thinking this invasion of a sovereign foreign country is a war, but it's not a war according to any law that is likely to be enforced within the USA.
Power accumulates in places it shouldn't be permitted unless the people occasionally claw it back and redistribute it. Unfortunately, Americans failed to claw back the power to declare war from the POTUS almost a century ago. Trump's reasons for declaring not-war (cough Wag the dog. cough Epstein. cough) are more unprecedented than his methods in this particular case.
Now the real reason is that venezuela is a "hostile influence in the western hemisphere" both from a russia/china perspective as well as an energy security perspective so this was a matter of when not if (monroe doctrine and all that).
This is not the first time the US has intervened in LatAm, and it won't be the last. Being the sole influence in N and S america is a defining feature of america and all americans, and has been so since 1823.
All Americans do not agree. You are mistaken.
The current US administration seemed to prefer isolationism (at least up until today), and seems hellbent on destroying the US economy. If they're successful in their goals, this might very well be the last SA intervention from the US for a very long time. Maybe they're aware of this, and this is some sort of dead-cat bounce or whatnot.
[1] which they have taken a lot of massive steps towards recently
But I do believe that a lot of the US government posturing that if implemented would be bad for economy (which you are alluding to), will not actually happen. A massive revamp of the economy is what the majority voting bloc in the US wishes for, so the winning politician will have to keep signalling in that direction. But actually following through with it, be it in a way with positive or negative effect, is extremely difficult. So I don't pay much attention to it.
This is an interesting claim, what did you see to suggest this?
The tariffs are not isolationist, they are leverage held over trading partners used to coerce them.
It's the 2020's, not 1920's. Congress hasn't declared war since WW2, and that hasn't stopped us from engaging the dozens of wars and armed conflicts we've been directly involved in since then.
To be clear, I'm not happy/proud of that fact. I think it's a moral and systemic failing, and do not support America's actions in Venezuela this morning. I'm just perplexed why everyone seems to think a precedent we abandonded long before most of us were even born suddenly applies today, or why they know about that law but don't know that we've violated it more times than we've observed it (without consequences), or don't know about the War Powers Act, or think that Congress would do anything but further enable him.
In short, why does everyone suddenly think that's relevant while also ignoring all the other relevant history that establishes we do not and have not observed that precedent in the modern era. Again, we *Should*, but did anyone honestly expect it to happen, or that congress wouldn't go along with it, or that the current POTUS would respect such law/precedent?
TL;DR: I don't think we should be going to war or engaging in armed conflict without congressional approval either, but the law and well established precedent both say POTUS legally has that power, at least in the short term, and we're not even 24hours into the 60 day period the War Powers act (which is 50 years old and passed by congress btw) grants.
I would say this is the exact same thing we did with Manuel Noriega in 1988.
Personally, I hate that we do these things but it is certainly not impossible in the long run the lives of the Venezuelans will be improved.
It is hard to get an exact figure but inflation last year was 150-200% and that is an improvement from what they had. 50,000% hyperinflation at the end of the last decade.
Given I was just annoyed at my grocery bill an hour ago because of 3% inflation I really can't imagine what life is like with that level of inflation.